Paul’s letter to the Romans was delivered by Phoebe, a woman from Corinth, and yet her status, her relationship to Paul, her role in the Corinthian church, and what she did when she got to Rome are the epicentre of a massive debate between complementarians and egalitarians when it comes to women in ministry.
Recently, my friend and occasional sparring partner, Denny Burk, has written a critique of egalitarians for their explanation of this text, claiming that they not only make too much out of so little, but they twist and turn this text to turn Phoebe into a Christian leader and preacher. Something he says is a complete “hoax.”
According to Burk:
“But egalitarians have fabricated an entire mythology around this woman that is not justified by what Paul actually says about her.”
And he concludes by saying:
Never has more been made of so little than what egalitarians make of Paul’s mention of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2. There is no direct evidence of Phoebe being the first preacher of Romans or of her having some kind of ruling authority in the church—much less of her having apostolic authority. Egalitarians are way out over their skis exegetically when they make such claims.
I know I’m going to get a lot of people offside by saying this, but I have to tell you, in all honesty, that Denny is partly right … but ultimately wrong!
Let me explain why!
I have read a lot about Phoebe in books, articles, websites, and lectures, and I have to confess that egalitarians can engage in what I would call “Phoebe-maxing.”
I have read claims about Phoebe:
Phoebe was part of the senior leadership team in Corinth/Cenchreae.
Paul submitted to Phoebe’s authority.
Phoebe was endowed with apostolic authority in her apostolic mission.
Phoebe visited every Roman house church, she read Paul’s letter to them, and then preached from it as if it was regarded as Holy Scripture.
While much of this is technically possible, it is not proven, and in some cases I think it is improbable.
I wouldn’t call this a “mythology,” but it is “maxing” in the speculation of what Phoebe did and taking it into an egalitarian direction.
Now, if egalitarians are guilty of Phoebe-maxing, then our complementarian friends such Burk are guilty of Phoebe-dissing, by which I mean denying, downplaying, or dismissing who she was and what she did in Corinth and Rome either as explicitly stated or as might be reasonably inferred.
To be fair to Burk, he does say, “We can honor Phoebe with the very same honor Paul gave to her. She was a sister in Christ, a faithful servant of the Lord, and a benefactor of the saints and of Paul himself.” But the honor he is willing to give her has a ceiling, not provided by the text, but by his complementarian presuppositions.
Complementarians engage in five main errors when it comes to Phoebe in Rom 16:1-2:
1. Negative Speculation.
Complementarians claim in effect: “I don’t know what Phoebe did, but she never had authority over any man, and she never did any preaching in the presence of men.”
Well, if we do not know for certain what Phoebe did do in Corinth or Rome, then we do not know for certain what she did not do either.
The fog of circumstances surrounds both the egalitarian and complementarian positions.
We simply do not know for certain her status and activities and any speculation of what she did do is equally as speculative as to what she did not do.
In other words, “she definitely did” can be just as speculative as “she definitely did not.”
2. The Whataboutism of 1 Timothy 2:12.
I swear every time a complementarian discusses Deborah, Huldah, Mary Magdalene, Phoebe, Junia, Lydia, or any women in the Bible, at some point, they are going to declaim with great agitation, “Budwodaboot 1 Timothy 2:12?”
With the timing I could predict, Burk does not disappoint, and he adds at the end:
To make some grand sweeping claim about Phoebe being the first preacher of Romans or having some measure of apostolic authority is not justified by this paltry evidence. Especially when we take into account the fact that Paul elsewhere explicitly prohibited women from assuming such a role. Paul writes, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Tim. 2:12).
It is not just 1 Timothy 2:12 that is the issue, it is 1 Timothy 2:12 understood in light of white, patriarchal, middle-class, suburban, affluent, conservative culture, which is the canon within the canon within the canon within the canon within the canon of complementarianism.
I swear that if the Lord Jesus descended from heaven with Phoebe beside him, and told the CBMW executive that Phoebe preached a cracker of a sermon in Aristobulus’ house church (Rom 16:10), that someone would rise and ask, “Lord, have you read 1 Timothy 2:12?”
Could we please just discuss Phoebe, deacons, benefactors, Paul’s circle, and letter carriers in antiquity, without someone saying “Budwodaboot 1 Timothy 2:12?”
3. Word Studies that Rig Things Against Phoebe.
There are lies, there are damnable lies … and then there are word studies.
If egalitarians are guilty of reading too much into the text, then complementarians always prefer the translation of least significance.
Greek: 1 Συνίστημι δὲ ὑμῖν Φοίβην τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν οὖσαν διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κενχρεαῖς, 2 ἵνα αὐτὴν προσδέξησθε ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως τῶν ἁγίων καὶ παραστῆτε αὐτῇ ἐν ᾧ ἂν ὑμῶν χρῄζῃ πράγματι· καὶ γὰρ αὕτη προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ.
NIV: 1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.
ESV: 1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, 2 that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.
NASB95: I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; 2 that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.
First, did Phoebe hold the office of “deacon” in Corinth/Cencheae, or was she merely a “servant” in the general sense that she avails herself to serve others like Paul in her trips between Rome and Corinth?
When it comes to the Greek word διάκονος both options are possible and we cannot say for certain either way. So flip a coin!
No egalitarian or complementarian position hinges on which option you prefer here. An egalitarian could translate it as “servant” and a complementarian could translate it as “deacon” and nobody has to change their view of women and ministry.
But notice that the ESV and NASB95 both defer to the position of least significance, where Phoebe has no official position as a deacon and they ensure she has only a general role as “servant” or “helper.”
I’m not so much concerned that they have arrived at that conclusion, but I do want to ask, “why?” Was it a decision based on lexemes and context, or was it because of an instinct to always defer a woman to the lowest position possible? I surmise it is probably both!
Second, was Phoebe a “benefactor/patron” or “helper”?
Here the Greek word προστάτις usually means “benefactor” or “patron” in the sense of someone who provides monetary and material support to a person like Paul in his missionary travels.
However, note how the NASB95 translates it with the general sense of “helper” (so too NKJV, RSV), which diminishes the noun's connotations of beneficence and prestige.
What is more, Burk tries to insulate Phoebe’s benefaction from any implication of a leadership role or responsibility in the Corinthian house churches. He writes: “The logic here is that the Romans ought to help Phoebe precisely because she has been a help/benefactor/patron to so many others—including to Paul himself. That logic breaks down if ‘leader’ is inserted.”
To clear the deck, the primary usage of the word προστάτις and the way Phoebe is described as assisting “many and of myself as well,” make it clear that a meaning of benefactor or patron is intended (here Burk and I are in agreement).
Does that prove that Phoebe was a “leader” in the church of Cenchreaa/Corinth? As Burk points out, no it does not! There is no necessary entailment of patron as pastor!
However, patrons were not excluded from church leadership, and it is perhaps more likely than not that as a provider of material support, Phoebe very probably had some say and sway in the operations of her house church.
It’s interesting too that when Paul wrote to Philemon and Apphia, who were patrons of the Colossian house church, that Paul distinguished their patronage from Archippus who was the on-site leader (see Philm 1-2). Yet notice that he doesn’t differentiate patronage roles from leadership roles when he mentions other house churches like “Nyphma and the church that meets in her house” (Col 4:14). Nympha does not have an Archippus in Laodicea, so she’s probably both the church patron and the church leader.
So, yes, being a house church patron does not automatically mean one was also the leader of the house church (Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus are case in point). But I’m pretty sure the patron had some say in what went on, and in some cases it looks as if the church patron and church leader were one and the same (e.g. Nympha in Laodicea).
Yes, that is an inference, but I submit it is a reasonable one!
Now, a thought experiment!
Imagine this: if Paul was commending a Philip rather than Phoebe as the letter carrier, would complementarians translate διάκονον as “servant” or “deacon” and render προστάτις as “helper” rather than “benefactor” and also stress that Philip the benefactor had no leadership role in the Corinthian house churches?
I doubt it!
If the letter carrier was a Philip rather than Phoebe, they would not be disputing the Greek words or denying that house church patrons can also be house church leaders.
It is because Phoebe is a woman that the text has to be problematized and explained away because … “Budwodaboot 1 Timothy 2:12?”
4. Anachronism on Offices
Burk’s main concern is to demonstrate that Phoebe did not engage in anything related to “The ruling office [of] pastor/elder/overseer” because such offices were restricted to men.
Here is the problem. Paul mentions heads of households in his letters (Chloe, Stephanus, Aristobulus, Narcissus, Apphia), but hardly ever mentions deacons and overseers except in Phil 1:1. Yes, elders and deacons are mentioned in the pastoral epistles, but there are issues with authenticity and dating - I tend to think the pastoral epistles are based on fragments of Paul’s letters that got tidied up by someone like Luke much later, and added as a kind of appendix to a Pauline letter collection (long story, see NTiiW). Either way, we have very limited evidence from his letters about the precise offices and functions deacons, elders, or overseers in the mid-50s when he wrote Romans (Ephesians 4:11-12 is the exception).
Perhaps the pastoral epistles reflect what Paul always believed and taught about church leadership, but they might also reflect Paul developing awareness for the need for more formalized and established offices to be set up in the churches of Crete and Macedonia in order to provide structure and more clearly described qualifications for leaders.
What is clear, is that Paul gives no sense that he has a precise view of a single “pastor” who leads a congregation, with a differentiation between pastoral office and pastoral functions, and that women can do neither.
Much to the contrary, Paul teaches that women prophesy (1 Cor 11:15) and prophesying is didactic and located beside the gift/office of teaching/teacher (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Epn 4:11).
So I think Burk is trying to insulate Phoebe from pastoral roles, offices, and functions that either did not exist, or else were not yet clearly defined and developed.
If Paul had told Phoebe that when she got to Rome that she was not to exercise the office or function of a “pastor,” I wonder if Phoebe would have responded by saying, “But Paul, I’m not taking any sheep with me!” (Note, pastor = shepherd).
In other words, it would not have made any sense.
5. Why Did Paul Commend Phoebe?
The weakness in the complementarian view of Phoebe in Rom 16:1-2 is that they cannot explain why Paul commends her.
Remember, Paul wrote a lot of letters, and in those letters he commends a lot of people: Titus, Timothy, Epaphroditus, Tychicus, and John Mark are all co-workers in the Pauline circle.
Paul commends Phoebe similarly to how Paul commends other delegates and co-workers because she is probably doing a similar type of work as them!
If Phoebe was just dropping a letter in the mailbox, why commend her?
Many people delivered Paul’s letters and they do not get a mention at all.
But Paul commends her because she is there, like a Timothy or Titus, to do something, on his behalf, as part of his missionary circle, and the question is what!
In my Romans commentary, I tried to avoid both Phoebe-maxing and Phoebe-dissing. So here is what I argued:
Paul provided a commendation of Phoebe to the believers in Rome as a bona fide messenger on his behalf. As a “sister” she is part of the family of faith and enjoys familial bonds with the Roman believers. She is from Cenchreae, the eastern seaport of Corinth. Phoebe is probably a merchant, perhaps a widow, with enough financial means to travel to Rome. I doubt she travelled alone and she probably would have had escorts accompanying her like of slaves, freedmen, friends, or relatives. Paul describes her as a diakonos, which can mean either “servant” in the more general sense (see KJV, NASB, ESV, NET, HCSB), or “deacon” in the more specific sense (see NIV, NRSV, NLT, CEB or NJB with “deaconess”).
Paul commends her specifically as a prostatis, which is not as older translations rendered it merely a “helper” (see RSV, NASB) but more properly a “patron” (ESV) or “benefactor” (NRSV, NIV). Phoebe was Paul’s benefactor who provided him with resources and residence in which to carry out his ministry whilst in the Corinthian peninsula.
Clearly Phoebe was an important person in the Pauline circle. She was a household leader [in some unspecified way], financially independent, perhaps socially prominent, actively serving the Corinthian churches, and she is the one (not Timothy, Titus, or Tertius) whom Paul entrusts this very important letter to be delivered to the Roman believers.
I don’t think Phoebe necessarily read the letter to the Roman house churches because we do not know if Phoebe was even literate. Also, I doubt that she “preached” through Romans because Paul’s letter was not received as scripture.
Far more likely, Phoebe, as a letter-carrier, wanted to see the letter’s contents put into effect. So she orally supplemented and expanded its contents to them. Maybe she summarized it or stressed key parts and implications. Phoebe’s task was to convey and interpret the letter as well as carry out the business entailed in the letter.
She was probably there as Paul’s delegate, perhaps tasked with soliciting support for Paul when he arrived, assuaging concerns about Paul, answering questions about Paul’s letter, and advocating for Paul’s view of Gentile inclusion in the churches without Jewish proselytism.
Her role would have entailed talking to individuals and house churches about Paul and why his message and mission were worth supporting.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.